What Network accepts HMC-150

M

Mike_Raddport

Well-known member
I've been trying for two years to use this camera for reality show production, but none of the cable networks will accept it - they force a minimum MBPS of 35. This is driving me crazy because four years ago I was using the DVX for all cable reality productions Spike, TruTV, Bravo etc.

I realize that the 150 is only 24mbps max, but it's such a great form factor, and image, I can't believe it's not allowed. I hope they announce a HMC-150a at NAB and increase the bit rate. Any thoughts?
M
 
I'm not sure if it's this easy....but....

couldn't you just use the Panasonic AVCHD to DVCPROHD converter, and then lie and say you're shooting on the HVX200/HPX170?
 
I was going to suggest something similar to DBP...Just use Adobe Media Encoder (assuming you edit with Premiere) and export to AVC-Intra.

35mbps is actually a little low. I think the minimum for BBC is 50mbps.
 
Why say what you're even shooting on !
I 'd talk first about the content and somewhere down the line about the camera....when you've already aired it :)

I know that's easier said then done but if you believe so strongly about the HMC 150 ( which I do aswell) I would try to give them a demo about what the camera can do.
 
That's such BS. 50mbps mpeg 2? Do they even look at which codec is used or just the "numbers"? Or has Canon offered BBC more advertising?
 
I'd actually consider the Canon's as a serious contender for me (18x zoom is nice for us event shooters, and 4:2:2 is better also), if only they had CCDs instead of inferior CMOS chips.

CMOS just kills the camera.
 
Well, I'm about to sign a contract that states the minimums and oversaw a show that I just finished that busted us for going over the percentage, so it makes you think twice. I do think it's bull crap though. And yes, I'm sure that some networks accept it all the time.
 
shadowProd said:
Well, I'm about to sign a contract that states the minimums and oversaw a show that I just finished that busted us for going over the percentage, so it makes you think twice. I do think it's bull crap though. And yes, I'm sure that some networks accept it all the time.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying it was bull crap on your part but bull crap on their part that they wont let you.
 
Jim Simon said:
I'd actually consider the Canon's as a serious contender for me (18x zoom is nice for us event shooters, and 4:2:2 is better also), if only they had CCDs instead of inferior CMOS chips.

CMOS just kills the camera.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that CMOS chips are inferior and the Canon cam in particular? Have you used the new Canon with CMOS chips, if so, what are the specific issues? The two chip types are different yes, and both have merit. And yes both have disadvantages. If you make a statement like CMOS chips are inferior, back it up.

CMOS offers full raster images in smaller sized cams, albeit with jello or strobe in some cases. CCDs aren't as sharp (until you get into very expensive cams) and have issues with smear. Pick your poison, but I don't think there is a fact that can be established in this regard. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Grant
 
The issue with low bitrate long GOP codecs is not how good it looks coming out of the camera, but how well it stands up to the recompression grinder when it goes to broadcast.
 
That has almost nothing to do with the chips themselves, and on most cameras you could just use something like a Nanoflash to get intraframe 422 recording and bypass the camera's compression.
 
Its going to depend on the network, you can't really say no network accepts it. I haven't had any problem converting HMC footage into the formats the networks in my area accept.

Sucks that the ones you talked to are such sticklers, but Nanoflash would be an easy solution.
 
With regard to the acceptance factor; I would bet that if the footage is compelling enough, most of the rigid requirements will vanish.

Grant
 
Razz hit the nail on the head. It is allabout the recompression from the broadcaster's perspective. I could go with a nanoflash, but I would have to come out of the HDMI and that opens a can of worms for run and gun shooting and possibly post. I'm thinking of using the soon to be released Canon XF100 - 50mbps - 4:2:2 to compact flash cards. Anyone have any more info on that cam? And yes, I shouldn't have opened the discussion by saying NO networks will accept the 150.
 
What makes you say that CMOS chips are inferior and the Canon cam in particular?
Click to expand...

Flash banding. Where a flash goes off and only half the frame shows it. That just looks like ****. As an event shooter, I'm often forced to record scenes with probably an average of 100 flashes per minute. CMOS reeeeeeally looks bad in those scenarios.

For event work, CMOS is the inferior technology.
 
Jim

That is exactly the point, for me, CMOS works fine since I usually have control of my shooting environment. And since that is my reality, a CMOS cam performs just fine in that role and can provide a sharper image than my CCD cam. There have been many discussions about different cams handling the flash band issue with better and worse results. You might want to search.

Grant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top